THAT is a good Christian!!! I agree with you actually; Beck is but one of a number of "antichrists." Those who twist the Word for their own selfish purposes are antichrists. However, I do not believe the end is nigh, and I do believe that Revelations was about Nero Caesar, and it was a book about sociopolitics, and not a tome about future events. I'm not looking to change your mind, though, because your heart's in the right place.

"Forgive them for they know not what they do."

Are you talking about forgiving beck?

Perhaps beck does need to be forgiven for his talk of killing Michael Moore and poisoning Nancy Pelosi.

Perhaps beck needs to be forgiven for the hundreds of times he has used nazi and hitler analogies about Obama. Nazis murdered 6 million Jews and others.

Perhaps beck needs to be forgiven for calling President Obama a "racist". Bearing false witness against one's neighbor is a sin, isn't it?

Perhaps beck should be forgiven for lying so many times. Lying is a sin, isn't it?

Perhaps beck should be forgiven for the time, very early in his radio shock jock career when he called up a rival's wife three days after her miscarriage, put her on the air, and told her that her husband couldn't do anything right.....why, he couldn't even have a baby.

Nah. beck doesn't need any stinkin' forgiveness. He is unforgiveable, so why bother?

Oh, I forgot to add a couple of other things one might consider forgiving beck for, even though he really cannot be forgiven:

Perhaps beck should be forgiven for saying that he hated some of the 9-11 victims' families.

Perhaps beck should be forgiven for saying that he hated some of the Katrina victims.

Is "hate" a family value?

Well, actually, I am a very forgiving person, but how many times does beck need to be forgiven for very nasty things he has said and done? He will never learn, and I suspect, that because he claims to be a religious man, he thinks he will be forgiven for every indiscretion, large or small, that he commits. He will use his "religiosity" to enable himself to commit larger and larger sins and, because he claims to be a religious man, he will believe he will get away with it since he will be forgiven.

Big, fat ditto on this one!

Please, don't reference Beck, Fox, and News in the same sentence. You'll make me fall over laughing.

Last I heard, the idiot desire for 'end of days' wasn't news, nor is any other religious apocalypse, but Beck sure does go there a lot, right? Must be that heavy news day.

Further, O'Donnell did this segment at the end, you know, after he was done covering things like Libya, Japan, Republican attacks on abortion as opposed to job creation, and the like. You know, the news.

So, try again, Texas.

Jesus was a liberal. Deal with it!

I wonder why Faux News has felt the need to spend much of their time bashing MSNBC instead of reporting the actual news? Surely, if MSNBC is so bad; surely, if Faux News just "kills" MSNBC in the ratings (something they mention often); then why does MSNBC even matter? Why spend the time boasting about how great Faux News is and bashing MSNBC?

A recent study from the University of Maryland has indicated that Faux News viewers are the most misinformed viewers of news in this country. I have no doubt that is true.

Fox and News...Using both the words "Fox" and "News" in the same sentence is laughable!!!

Most Christians misunderstand both the history and the purpose of the Book of Revelation. I'm an actual Christian, I went to a Lutheran school, went to a Presbyterian church, and read the Bible. I suggest; From Christian to Christian- Read the whole bible, and reread Revelations. Afterwards, it will become obvious Larry was right, and that, I can assure you!

I disagree.

beck is a loon; he is quite insincere and ignorant. beck has called himself a "rodeo clown." If you recall, in his early days at Faux News, he cried on his show, saying "I love my country......" This is as insincere as you can get. He wasn't really crying. There is video of beck in his dressing room showing his makeup team putting something akin to Vicks Vapor Rub beneath his eyes, and beck produces faux tears and crying. You can find this video on YouTube. This man is a complete phony.

Further, if Obama and his administration really are nazis, as beck has implied they are, why has he felt the need to make such hitler and nazi references literally hundreds of times? (This, by the way, has been documented). If Obama and his administration were anywhere close to being nazis (who, by the way, murdered 6 million Jews and others), "the convincing wouldn't be necessary; it would be obvious."

I don't really know why beck doesn't mention Lawrence O'Donnell's name other than, perhaps, he is a coward. The man can very easily call people with whom he disagrees "nazis," "communists," "Maoists," "Stalinists," etc., etc.. He can very easily talk about killing Michael Moore or poisoning Nancy Pelosi. He can very easily call President Obama a "racist."

But when someone makes fun of him and tells the truth about him, this guy is afraid to pronounce the name of "Lawrence O'Donnell?" He's a coward. He is a bloody phony.

I was a"Christian" once who went to a Jesuit high school. I never took the book of revelation that seriously when I actually was a practicing Catholic.

Quote by crumplecup: "For instance, the book says that every nation in the world will trade in one currency and have one world leader, conditions that have never existed on earth at any time."

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), the rule making authority of the U.S. for all publicly held companies and generally accepted accounting principles, will submit its authority to International Financial Recording Standards (IFRS) beginning in about 2014. The U.S. and the world are going to one set of accounting standards. Since the establishment of the SEC in 1934, U.S. publicly held companies were governed by U.S. standards only. We are headed for a one world standard for accounting and it is upon us. That is one major hurdle that had to take place BEFORE there could be one world currency.

I suspect that the current U.S. financial crisis and our national debit situation is going to bankrupt us eventually, prompting further movement in the direction of a one world financial system. There are many in this country who desire to see the U.S. subserviant to the United Nations governing body, rather than to be a sovereign nation. It looks like it is all in place to go to a one world currency and governing body to me. Just give it some more time. BTW, I'm not condoning or approving of any of Becks comments. Don't know what they are and could care less.

DelilahK,

The 10 Commandments reveal the character of God, what he is like. Obviously, He hasn't done away with Himself. :) But as far as the Mosaic law, if you read my posts and/or look up the Bible references, you will see that Joe Mamma is correct. Colossians 2:14, the law (OT laws) was done away with and nailed to Christ's cross. Read it yourself. Also see Ephesians 2:15. Note where it says Christ abolished the law? Meaning it doesn't apply to Christians (followers of Christ). Do you recall Paul speaking of believers being circumcised as "falling away from Christ"?, in Galations 5:2? Galations 5:25 states that "Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law." Through the Holy Spirit, God has placed his laws within us. We no longer need a schoolmaster. OT laws have been abolished, done away with through Christ.

Delialah,

maybe I could have worded my statement better. The new covenant supersedes Mosaic law. Not to get into a drawn out conversation (i have to go to work), for instance what once was an eye for an eye, Jesus said to love and pray for your enemy (turn the other cheek). As for adultery(someone earlier in the thread had mentioned), Jesus didn't say that the punishment should be death, but he did say that even looking passionately at a woman other than your wife was the same thing, as you have committed adultery in your heart.

So you saying you understand the mind of God??? I believe that's both prideful, and sacrilegious. That being said, I agree with you in regards to Beck's blasphemy. He's more of an antichrist than any.

Typically when one goes out of their way to point out someone else's faults, it is because they entertain these faults in themselves. Hey?

Relax, Sweet pea... In context of the original thread: It certainly wasn't Jesus Christ who wrote the Revelations. Secondly, as Mark F describes, there were many John's in the New Testament. Thirdly, I will admit, I thought it was JA that was killed. Fourthly, JB ate bugs... Doesn't Revelation read like the scrawling of a guy that eats bugs? Fifthly, I heard the author of Revelation wrote most or all of it while in exile on the island of (i wasn't absolutely sure until you said it) Santorini, Crete or Malta. Sixthly, JB was considered by some to be a prophet, meant to pave the way for Jesus. Lastly, this has become, and never was, a discussion of the origins of Christianity. Is Letters considered the Letters of Jesus? No, they're not, you're right in that regard... BUT, you failed to acknowledge that JA was supposedly a disciple of JB, and that JA was John, Son of Zebedee. So what I said was both JB and JA authored the Book of Revelation, and I'm still correct in that regard. I was simply wrong on which John it was who should get their name in the title. Whoops! My bad! I was wrong on that. So again, I say, Relax Cupcake! Daddy still loves you...

Sorry posted the last comment to the wrong thread.

It's the Book of Revelations of John the Baptist, and was written partially by John the Baptist, and partially by another John, son of Zebedee (Sorry if its spelled incorrectly). Einstein once said "Education is what's left, after you have forgotten what you've learned in school." He was a Jew... Think about that, and then cast your stones.

John the Baptist?!? The guy who eats locusts and honey and says "Every tree will be chopped down that doesn't produce good fruit" ?? John the Baptist did -not- write revelation. John the apostle did, wow.

John the Apostle was a disciple of John the Baptist. In the historical tradition of the time, publications of this type were often attributed to the original professor. Ex.- Socrates' Alagory of the Cave was actually recorded by Plato (Socrates' student). I still may be wrong, and I apologize IF I am, but I stand by my statement nonetheless. Yes, the guy that eats locusts... lmao

John the Baptist? John the Apostle? John the Presbyter? John the Evangelist? John of Patmos?

The answer to "Who wrote Revelation?" depends entirely on who you ask. Catholic scholars lean more toward Saint John of Patmos, but no one really knows for sure.

Relax, Sweet pea... In context of the original thread: It certainly wasn't Jesus Christ who wrote the Revelations. Secondly, as Mark F describes, there were many John's in the New Testament. Thirdly, I will admit, I thought it was JA that was killed. Fourthly, JB ate bugs... Doesn't Revelation read like the scrawling of a guy that eats bugs? Fifthly, I heard the author of Revelation wrote most or all of it while in exile on the island of (i wasn't absolutely sure until you said it) Santorini, Crete or Malta. Sixthly, JB was considered by some to be a prophet, meant to pave the way for Jesus. Lastly, this has become, and never was, a discussion of the origins of Christianity. Is Letters considered the Letters of Jesus? No, they're not, you're right in that regard... BUT, you failed to acknowledge that JA was supposedly a disciple of JB, and that JA was John, Son of Zebedee. So what I said was both JB and JA authored the Book of Revelation, and I'm still correct in that regard. I was simply wrong on which John it was who should get their name in the title. Whoops! My bad! I was wrong on that. So again, I say, Relax Cupcake! Daddy still loves you...

Holy God!!! If I had the time and energy to make you look like the fool you are, I would go on a rant to end all rants. The Earth's ROTATIONAL AXIS changes every year in a 26,000 yr cycle; The MAGNETIC POLES change every few hundred thousand years! Solar Flares come and go with a roughly 11 year cycle with varying degrees of severity. The MOON is in fact retreating away from the Earth, and has been so for several BILLION years. The Moon's gravity is a sixth of the Earth's, and will not change for a million generation's and even then, only due to its distance, not the Apocalypse! And as far as your supposed Holy War... We are engaged in Libya to save lives, despite their religion. It's what Jesus would do! You are a special kind of crazy my misguided friend. I'll see you on January 1, 2013... Don't forget your tinfoil hat.

Actually Constantine had a dream of holding the banner that Christians use and that any army under it would be victorious. Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome after his victory.

Leviticus 20:9 "If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death."

Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

Yes, Mr. O'Donnell was referring to OT scripture.

I am not trying to defend Glenn Beck. I don't care for the guy even though I am a conservative. I can't stand him. I think he is full of lies in order to promote the conservative agenda, like Rush Limbaugh. On the other hand, I believe that Mr. O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow and others on MSNBC do the same to further the liberal agenda. All of it is skunk stinking politics.

Many Christians on this thread have stated that when Christ came the OT laws were put aside, which means the ones Mr. O'Donnell was talking about also. I don't see how you can interpret what the Bible has to say about the OT laws any other way, if you are a student of the Bible. Galatians is probably the best book that illustrates this. Circumcision was an OT law. Some followers of Christ were being pressured to be circumcised because some Jewish believers believed that this OT law was still in effect. Paul made it very clear that it was not still in effect. See Galatians 5:2. Paul makes it very clear in other verses, such as Colossians 2:14, that the entire OT system was made obsolete because of Jesus.

Now, if you use Mr. O'Donnell's argument, you don't believe the Bible literally unless you believe that circumcision still applies. That is total cow fodder. Do you get what I am trying to say? His argument is without merit, in my opinion.

I don't see how you can defend what Mr. O'Donnell had to say in regards to these laws. I find no basis for it from the Bible. I believe that most Christians agree on this. If they do not, please say so and provide support for your argument from the Bible.

It's obvious that believers in past ages as well as today do pick and choose what they want to believe to support what they want. I agree with you on that. The South used OT scripture to defend slavery, but they were wrong, OT laws no longer apply. Many who claim to be Christians today have so much hate against President Obama and the Democrats that their thinking has become distorted and illogical. I get emails from my brother frequently that espouses this hatred and distorted thinking. They sacrifice their integrity and honesty for hatred.

But it is my opinion, that if you put 100 Christians, well studied in the Bible, in a room and asked them if they believed that OT laws still applied, that the overwhelming majority would say no.

Don,

I'm not quite sure of your points.....I don't really get what you're trying to say, and I'm not being trying to be facetious when I say this.

I'll just say this. I don't think any of the Bible necessarily needs to be taken literally, whether it is the OT or the NT. I've read parts of the Bible. I went to Catholic church every Sunday and every holy day while growing up; I went to prayer service every morning at a Jesuit high school, except for Wednesdays, when we had to go to a late morning full blown mass. But I have never "studied" the Bible. I am absolutely no Bible expert. In fact, I no longer practice any religion because I think there is too much hypocrisy coming from organized religion (and, there are other reasons).

My experience is that some people do take the Bible literally, and I have seen that for both OT passages as well as NT passages. I had an argument one time with someone on a blog about homosexuality. That person was very anti-gay, and she quoted 1 or 2 passages from the OT. I didn't know it was from the OT until I looked up her quotes.

I had another argument with someone a few years ago, on a blog like this, about the Iraq war. I complained loudly about Bush going into that war, and the response I got was a quote from the OT that seemed to indicate that this woman believed that God sanctioned war.

I don't think O'Donnell was defending those laws. He was giving such examples to show that that a literal translation of the Bible can be an absurd thing to do. It doesn't matter if it is the OT or the NT. He's trying to say that beck is taking the Bible literally, but O'Donnell gives examples of why one should not take it literally....and, again, it doesn't matter if it is the OT or the NT.

How many times have we heard people claim that we are in the "end times," apparently getting their beliefs from Revelations, the NT? I remember in grade school I was scared out of my wits because some kid told me that on that day, the world would end. Did he get this from the NT? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if he had overheard something like that from his parents. But, throughout time, people have said that the end is near...beck has joined these ranks because he has said many things which lead to the conclusion that we are in those "end times."

I agree very much with what Lawrence is saying. Beck claims to be a religious man, but I do not believe him. And I certainly do not believe you can take the bible literally, regardless if it is the OT or the NT.

And, you may be right that if you randomly select 100 Christians, the overwhelming majority would say that the OT laws do not apply.....if these Christians were "well studied in the Bible." There are many who are not well-studied.

zermatt,

I realize he wasn't trying to defend the laws, but he used a very bad example, in my opinion, to explain why he doesn't think a person should take the Bible literally. He said that in order to take the Bible literally you had to believe that those laws were still in effect. That's what I understand he said. However. as I've already pointed out, using scripture as a basis, those laws became inactive or obsolete when Christ showed up on the scene. OT laws do not apply today. For that reason, a person can believe in the Bible literally, yet not believe the penalty for adultery or not worshipping on the sabbath should be death, because they no longer apply today. I totally disagree with Mr. O'Donnell.

Mr. O'Donnell also stated that "HE KNOWS" that the book of Revelation has nothing to do with the world today because he "BELIEVES" it is a work of fiction. And he stated that "HE KNOWS" the Japan crisis has nothing to do with the end of the word. To "KNOW" these things for a certainty, as he is stating it, you would have to be GOD. You can have a firm conviction that Revelation has nothing to do with the world today, a strong belief, and you can have a conviction that the Japan crisis has nothing to do with the end of the word. Different people will have different thoughts and beliefs about such matters. Everyone's opinion, including Beck's should be respected. That includes Mr. O'Donnell's also. But to say you "KNOW" is to imply you are omniscient. In that regard, Mr. O'Donnell starts to sound like Glenn Beck, unbelievable and ridiculous.

I think our ways in general of having political discourse and discussion in this country between liberals and conservatives has become dysfunctional and that Beck's, Limbaugh's, Hannity's, and Colter's shows represent such dysfunction. But then, MSNBC falls into the ratings trap, I assume, and follows suit. Makes them look just ridiculous, in my opinion. Neither side is listening to the other anymore, if they ever did. I won't say it's all due to one party because both sides are guilty of stretching and distorting the truth. But, I do remember a time when there was more respect for each other's views whether we shared them personally or not.

I don't know what Mr. O'Donnell's views are on Christianity or God in general. What I do "KNOW" and not just believe, is that Christ is risen, that God is a reality, based on my personal life events. At this point I've probably lost credibility based on what I just said. That doesn't change the truth of what has happened to me. I've had the same experience that Paul describes in Ephesians 3:19, amplified version of the Bible. Christ filled my entire body with His Presence for 3 days back in 1972 when I was going through a very difficult emotional struggle. I had the richest measure of the Divine Presence. It was accompanied by foreknowledge of a future event. So, my perception of God and the world was forever changed during this time. Evolutionists can present all the evidence they will about there being no spiritual force involved in the creation of the world or the universe, and about the 7 day earth creation being a fairy tale. All I know is I've experienced a being that I only believed existed until April, 1972. Somehow that has to fit into the puzzle also, but many don't believe it does. That's their choice.

My contact with this entity was through using the Bible, mostly NT scripture. And the experience paralleled Paul's in Ephesians 3:19. So why should I doubt Revelation as being God's word also? I have no basis to, quite the contrary.

At first glance, when I saw your post, I thought you said "Glen Beck is a Moron." Yes, that is what he is.

I am really curious about these Mormons, though. Why do they wear funny, magic underwear?

I understand that Mormons warn against having facial hair, yet Brigham Young had a huge beard.

I also believe that Brigham Young had something on the order of 55 wives, and some think that Mr. Young was not "sealed" to all of them. I don't fully understand the concept of sealing, but I think it is something that completes a marriage. In spite of the fact that one of the original leaders of the Mormon church had 55 or so wives, I find it curious that Brigham Young University just kicked a star basketball player off of the team for having pre-marital sex. I don't understand.

Ah, the wonders of religion.

They believe in these spirit babies and that black people were bad spirits, but like polygamy, it was changed to fit social norms. However, they still hold to the belief that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, and that earth is Jesus' planet, but every good Mormon gets their own planet on day.

Its not about religion. Its about what is true and what is bull@!$%#.

Well, beck loves the Founding Fathers, so if beck believes in the book of Revelations, he should be made aware of what Thomas Jefferson thought about Revelations.

Likewise, if people like beck and michelle bachmann love the Founding Fathers so much, they should know that some of the Founding Fathers owned slaves. As you mention, Jefferson owned slaves.

Likewise, if people like the Founding Fathers so much and claim that the Constitution was drafted and approved based on "Judeo-Christian" beliefs, they should know that some of the Founding Fathers were not Christians and in fact did not have any use for religion.

As you point out, he has his arguments for the destruction of Native American culture.

I'd really like to see people like beck and bachmann explain all of this!